Britain, I have learned, has an interesting public health care system in which those who be calculate a cost effectiveness of costly drugs and procedures. If the cost of the surgery or prescription outweighs the benefit, the government says no. This doesn’t seem to happen in the United States. I’m beginning to wonder why. Seriously.
Now don’t call Jeb just yet, hear me out. I read this book one time (imagine that – me finishing a book!) where some time in the future this happened all over the world. If the patient was too old, it wasn’t worth the government’s money to provide health care for that individual because the person didn’t contribute enough to society. In other words, you should pay your own way.
I’m not expressing an ultimatum or starting an argument – I’m only bringing something up I read in today’s Wall Street Journal about a drug for the treatment of Alzheimer’s and Britain’s asking its physicians not to prescribe it anymore because it costs so much and doesn’t do enough. Is it worth it? Should the public pay to treat someone who doesn’t earn anything or make any type of contribution to society, especially when the treatment works only for a little while?
IMHO, no. It’s as simple as Terry Schiavo. Don’t prolong suffering.
Within the other shoe, I totally support the funding of Alzheimer’s research and other ventures related to the prevention and cure of any disease. I just don’t support some drug that’s been released and doesn’t provide at least something more permanent.
No comments:
Post a Comment